Some good advice: RE; validation

[four20nik]

Sassy...one question just came to mind.

 

If one disputes after 30 days...with the CA and the CRA....CA is forced to iinvestigate.

 

If they continue to report it without marking in dispute...yes...its a violation.

 

But how would it be reporting false info if they continue reporting it if, according to their records it IS true? There is still no obligation to supply the consumer with anything. All they must do is mark it in dispute and investigate the disputed item. But if records show that they are right...then how would that violate?

 

I guess I was thinking that if they continued to report it...but made sure to mark it in dispute...there would be no violation.

 

But...if they didnt mark it in dispute...and verified...once the consumer has disputed it...then of course, that would be reporting false info...as they are reporting an undisputed debt.

 

Am I on the right track with ya?

[stella]

this thread is awesome but at the same time making my head hurt.

[SassyinAz]

We're flying together, Mama, that's what the difference is under the validation section the only options are validate or cease collection activity -- everything else is based on the information being false (ditto for the FCRA).

 

But, even under the validation section, 30-days or no 30-days, IF validation is provided and the information is accurate, you're not going to get much further.

 

There still is the question, especially for you onetwo, what if there's no initial communication -- the FDCPA requires no communication at all.

 

Sassy

[Clara Belle]

I used this letter "over" a month ago, I have yet to receive a reply.

 

Heee Heee

[SassyinAz]

Thank you Sassy for that enlightening post! Those are definitely some other possible concrete violations that you can catch a CA on. Remember, however, that we're talking about the letter at the beginning of this thread.

Exactly, the letter at the beginning of the thread is ALL that the validation section refers to, you don't have to do anything more.

 

It doesn't have a limited C&D.

I should search up the original thread that the letter is from.

 

There may be an issue of getting a judge to side with you that a letter of such brevity gives the CA proper notice that it is reporting inaccurate information.

No, the validation section doesn't mention inaccurate information. The word inaccurate isn't even used in the FDCPA at all. The FCRA covers accuracy and completeness, not the FDCPA. The first letter posted is all that the FDCPA says, actually there's a reference to the original creditor's name/address as well.

 

It DOES serve as good backup if they don't properly notate the disputed account.

No backup is needed, the FDCPA applies to CA's -- it is their job to know the laws that govern their chosen profession.

 

Sassy

[SassyinAz]

I used this letter "over" a month ago, I have yet to receive a reply.

 

Heee Heee

 

Perfect!!!!!!!!

 

Sassy

[radi8]

For the life of me, I cannot figure out this new movement trickling over from other boards in leading people to believe that validation outside of some non-determined 30-day period that applies to CA's, is worthless and without violations.

 

[sassy

 

The point I was trying to make was in reference to this question:

What are the other sections of the FDCPA that state that a collector must cease collection activities after notification of a dispute? I honestly would like to know.

I was not intending to imply that there were no other violations possible after the 30 days, only that the FDCPA's blanket requirement to cease collections ends at 30 days.

 

There have been a good number of posts asking if that collection letter sent after a DV is a violation- the answer depends on when the DV letter was sent.

 

The 30-day period does certainly apply to collectors only, there is no limit placed on the consumer.

 

Collectors are known to perpetuate this myth, stating that they are not required to respond to a DV received after 30 days.

Their claim is that the 30 days is a "dispute period", after which they are not required to validate.

That is not true in any case, as there is no requirement for them to respond at any time, 30 days or not.

But the FDCPA places no such restriction on consumers, this was not it's intent.

The only "restriction" placed on consumers is that a DV letter outside the 30-day window does not automatically require the collector to cease collection activity. One needs to use other sections to accomplish that.

 

 

 

 

Radi8

[sinobueno]

The following text is from this California Department of Consumer affairs website:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/legal/dc_2.pdf

 

"The debtor's communication is not subject to technical requirements, and need only question the demand for payment in some way. For instance, it may consist of an inquiry about the origin or date of the alleged debt, a request to verify its enforceability, an assertion that the amount demanded is incorrect, an assertion that nothing is owing, an assertion that it is owing by someone else, a question concerning the fact or amount of any previous payments, or an expression of some other kind of dispute, concern or question relating to the debt. All the debtor needs to do is to send the collector a letter that includes the statement, 'I dispute the debt,' with the debtor's name and a description of the alleged debt."

[Sultan]

UGGG!

 

Water the seeds you wish to grow people!

Edited December 17, 2005 by Sultan

[gto]

UGGG!

 

Water the seeds you wish to grow people!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

WTH are you talking about?

[tkroeger]

Hello, been lurking for a while now and have learned a TON. This is a great thread.

There still is the question, especially for you onetwo, what if there's no initial communication -- the FDCPA requires no communication at all.

 

Sassy

 

that's what I'd like to know

Edited January 19, 2006 by tkroeger

[Zombee]

Do you guys knoiw anyone that actually has had to follow through with their threat to sue a CA over a non-validated account? Just curious where it goes after the violations are racking up.

[Zombee]

Sorry, wanted to subscribe to thread but forgot to click the box:D

[whadyousay?]

I used to just throw the letters away so any 30 day period would have long past

but the way I see it is "I never received the letter".

 

I have never seen one sent certified. So who is to say I received it.

 

I just got off the phone with a CA who said they sent one I told her that I had never received

one.

[Zombee]

I guess where I'm going with this, is wondering what happens next. I mean say they sue me. Do I go to court and just say "They can't validate the claim" and it's over with? Or if they don't sue, and I try to get it taken off my cr, how will I do that? Will I really have to get a lawyer and try to sue them?

[whadyousay?]

subscribing.

[sfbehr]

Here's another vote for the "less is more" approach.

 

Sent the letter below to a CA after receiving their first letter (this was on behalf of my BF):

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Shady Collection Agency, Inc..

P.O. Box 1234567

Metropolis, KS 66666

 

To whom it may concern:

 

I have received your letter (copy enclosed) dated MM DD, YY, in which you claim that I owe a debt of $XXX.XX.

 

This letter is to inform you that I dispute this debt in its entirety, and I request that you provide validation of this debt pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). Also, please provide the original creditor's name, address, and date of last activity.

 

I thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

 

 

Very truly yours,

 

 

Aware Consumer

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Worked like a charm! Never heard from them again, and nothing on the credit reports.

[AAA]

sorry

Edited March 31, 2006 by AAA

[momof4angels]

subscribing

[StupidCredit]

I used to just throw the letters away so any 30 day period would have long past

but the way I see it is "I never received the letter".

 

I have never seen one sent certified. So who is to say I received it.

 

I just got off the phone with a CA who said they sent one I told her that I had never received

one.

That's a dumb strategy and a losing one as well.

 

In the regular course of business, they send letters. If they can prove they properly addresed a letter to you and sent it in the course of their business, it is presumed received.

 

You are another Mahon waiting to happen.

[lorcan]

subscribing

[angelkelly]

I am sending this short and sweet letter to my mother now to use on one of her CA's. Let you know how it turns out.

[praesignis]

I am sending this short and sweet letter to my mother now to use on one of her CA's. Let you know how it turns out.

 

This is the letter I use too. Don't forget to include a limited C&D: "Further, any contact by telephone is inconvenient at all times."

 

I love this letter!!

[madshooter]

subscribing

[Jester FPS]

Subscribing